Why have corner crossings been unavailable for the last 150 years? For prospecting, for grazing, for home steading.
Pretty simple, because it is a violation of private property rights, a taking of the owners' deeded properties, thus against the law.
The law under discussion was written to keep land barons from running home steaders off of public lands, often times which the land baron had previously used for grazing. Range wars were fought and people died over such disputes.
The last sentence clearly states, the land owner is under no obligation to let such persons cross his property.
Every one of you guys (except Buzzy) bitch and moan about modern judges legislating from the bench. Justifiably so.
Until you personally have something to gain from the change in ruling. Then great! Legislate on!
What a bunch of hypocrites!
As I have said many times here. You have every right to be on such lands. You don't have a right to cross private land to get there. Fortunately, modern technology gives us means to do the former without doing the latter.
If it is important enough to you.....hire that helicopter.
If there is so much landlocked terrain, and so incredibly much game on those lands? Hell, a whole new industry could grow up around charter flights, and outfitters to cater to the hunters.
Such charter service already exists for many wilderness areas.
Otherwise, if you want to cross a man's property, pay what HE asks for the privilege. Just as you would expect on your own property at home.
I don't care if a man owns 10,000 sq feet, or 10 million acres, whether it is valued at $10/acre or $1,000,000/sq ft. Every sq ft is just as sancrosanct.
I fully expect the Supremes to reverse this decision. If it gets there before Biden and his ilk can pack the courts.
RE: the statement in bold
Quote
Pretty simple, because it is a violation of private property rights, a taking of the owners' deeded properties, thus against the law.
If corner crossing, the simple act of stepping over a point of land and perhaps violating a few square inches, perhaps a square foot of air space constitutes a "taking" of property could it not be said conversely that the act of using, in a proprietary manner, the public property on the other side of the corner crossed is a "taking" of public lands for private use?
And, re: the law having been established for 150 years and now you think an activist judge has overturned it. I do not recall seeing an answer to my statement earlier in this thread that laws are not really "settled" in perpetuity and mentioned the recent overturning of NY laws in the Bruen case. There are many, many more cases in which previously established laws have been overturned. You and I may not agree on the wisdom of the overturning of some of those laws, however the fact is they were overturned thereby making "settled" law now unsettled.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
